The Making of Modern English Theology
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Introduction Theology and the Modern University During the final stages of the Terror in Paris in September 1793, the National Convention abolished all the universities and colleges of France. By doing so, the Convention was beginning a ancien régime process that would directly or indirectly revolutionize the university as a European institution and the practice of theology as a university discipline. The French universities, some of the oldest and most venerable on the continent, had been the training grounds for those defending the religious and political orthodoxies of the eighteenth century and even the fall of Robespierre could not alter the secularist Republic’s underlying conviction that the university “had no more place in the new age than monasteries, serfdom or slavery.”1 Those who were planning the new terrain of higher education in France admired theology as the ‘queen of the sciences’ as much as they had admired Marie Antoinette, and by the time of Napoleon’s concordat with Rome in 1801, theology had been exiled from the new central institutions of higher education in France to seminaries . This might have signalled the end of the university as a modern European institution. As we shall see, the survival and development 1. L. Brockliss, “The European University, 1789-1850” in The History of the University of Oxford, (8 vols., Oxford, 1988-2000), 6:93. 1 THE MAKING OF MODERN ENGLISH THEOLOGY of the university was in many respects surprising and the inclusion of theology within the modern university perhaps even more so. The genealogy of the discipline has become of crucial significance in recent years, since, while theologians in the West today do not face the violent rejection that their forbears encountered in late eighteenth-century France, many will describe their continued presence in universities as being comparable to a Babylonian captivity. The Enlightenment university, it is claimed, has programmatically driven theology either to extinction or into the more secularly respectable – and less sectarian, it is assumed – study of religion. These anxieties over the pursuit of theology are framed by a wider confusion over the condition of the humanities in the university, and the very purpose of the modern university. The celebrated mid-twentieth century president of the University of California, Clark Kerr, famously described the university in 1963 as “a series of faculty entrepreneurs held together by a common grievance over parking” and his coinage of the term “multiversity” to describe the disparate aims of modern higher education in the West remains germane.2 Determining how theology has reached its current state in the Western university is a harder question to answer. It is persistently asked in contemporary theological circles, where the loss of territory within the university and the retreat of the churches from the academic sphere have been a cause of acute concern. Is it the result of the seemingly unstoppable process of secularization? Was theology ruined by its own methodological collusion with the social sciences? Or is theology’s decline just one aspect of the technologically driven collapse of the humanities within our universities? All these answers 2. Clark Kerr, (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2001), 15. See The Uses of a University also Stefan Collini, (London: Penguin, 2012); M. Nussbaum, What Are Universities For? Not for (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 2012). Profit: Why Democracy Needs the Humanities 2 INTRODUCTION have been offered, and yet within each response there is a lack of historical context that should be worrying to scholars who are otherwise so sensitive to such detail. This book seeks to begin the work of providing that historical definition to theology’s contemporary predicament. As the first book to provide an account of theology’s modern institutional origins in an English university, it will, it is hoped, underline the phrase oft-repeated by Karl Barth, ‘ .3 Latet periculum in generalibus’ This is not a work of historical theology, but an account of how theology was practised in an English institution that was converted from an ecclesiastical seminary on the Thames into a globally influential research university – open to all denominations and none – by the beginning of the twentieth century. As we shall see, it is not a purely local account; despite their isolationist tendencies, even Oxford and Cambridge could not fail to be envious of the fruits of research emanating from German universities during the nineteenth century or be affected by the changing fortunes of France and the United States. Nonetheless, the effects of continental developments and, in particular, the influence of the University of Berlin, can be overstated for contemporary thinking about how theology has come to be practised in the European university. Theologians at Oxford and Cambridge came to model an idiosyncratic paradigm of theological practice in the way they negotiated relationships between the churches and university, between theology and the study of religion, and between ‘scientific’ theology and ministerial training. What follows are two assertions. Firstly, although Berlin – and particularly Schleiermacher’s importance to its foundation – is undeniably influential for the making of modern theology, it is suggested that certain readings of Humboldt’s masterly creation have 3. “Danger lies in generalizations.” 3 THE MAKING OF MODERN ENGLISH THEOLOGY come to dominate, sometimes unhelpfully, the historiography of modern theology. The second assertion challenges the first by suggesting that the English university has, largely through its reaction to continental political developments, evolved with significant differences from continental, Scottish, and North American institutions. By analysing theology’s place within the University of Oxford during a period of extensive reform, this development of this distinctive paradigm is introduced as an alternative way of thinking about theology’s institutional development since the Enlightenment. From Paris to Berlin: the Origins of the Research University The decisions adopted in France during the Revolution were so significant for the history of the modern European university since the institutional models that were established in their place in the Republic were soon being exported across Europe by the French bayonet. In place of these formidable ecclesiastical foundations, the Thermidorean administration founded a series of specialist set écoles, alongside the research-directed that would offer a more académies, focussed professional education to students in contrast to the old universities’ diet of classics and theology. Although several of Europe’s ‘enlightened despots’ had attempted to reform the curricula and administration of their universities in the face of declining matriculations and mismanagement, it was the advance of Napoleon’s troops that ultimately provoked the greatest changes to the operations of Europe’s oldest universities.4 His protégé monarchs shut such prestigious institutions as Louvain, Wittenberg, and Halle (the last 4. It should be noted, however, that the success of such initiatives was limited due to conservative religious forces within the universities. One exception was Joseph II of Austria who successfully rationalized the number of universities, made German rather than Latin the official language, and compelled the universities to admit Jews and Protestants. (L. Brockliss, 89) ibid., 4 INTRODUCTION having only been established in 1694) and even where the university survived, such as in Bologna, Padua, and Pavia (which came under the control of Napoleon’s stepson Eugène de Beauharnais), the faculties were reconfigured with theology excised. In the few institutions where the old higher faculties did survive, such as at Turin, the funds available were so reduced by the Napoleonic war machine that the university was effectively crippled.5 This assault on Europe’s universities and their theological faculties was not simply the result of Jacobin anti-clericalism. At the heart of these changes was a desire to introduce Enlightenment methodologies to higher education. Influential French thinkers such as Charles de Talleyrand and Nicolas de Condorcet perceived the pursuit of truth not as the reverential reception of dogma and the defence of orthodoxy but the hard labour of inductive study, and universities – if they were to survive at all – ought to exist for the expansion of human understanding. They should not perpetuate and defend aristocratic and ecclesiastical interests. From as early as the end of the seventeenth century, extra-mural academies had been founded to foster research in the natural sciences and natural philosophy and the Revolution only confirmed a well-established instinct that it would be these academies, rather than the inherited universities, that would become the primary seats of higher learning in enlightened Europe.6 How then did the university survive as an influential institution of modern Europe? It can be attributed only indirectly to the French. After Napoleon defeated the Prussians in the battles of Jena-Auerstedt 5. D. Outram, “Military Empire, Political Collaboration, and Cultural Consensus: The Université Imperiale Reappraised: The Case of the University of Turin”, vii (1998), History of Universities 287-303. 6. M. Purver, (Cambridge, MA: MIT Press, 1967); The Royal Society: Concept and Creation J.E. McClellan, (New York: Science Reorganized: Scientific Societies in the